German Scientists: IPCC Climate Models “Out Of Control”…”Exclusion Of Critics A Historic Mistake”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

New IPCC report under doubt: models out-of-control and a new hockey stick

By Die kalte Sonne
[German text translated/edited by P Gosselin]

IPCC authors “politically handpicked”

The IPCC climate status report serves as an important reference for climate policy and public discussion. However, very few people are aware that the authors of the report are politically hand-picked. Although anyone can apply as an author to the national IPCC committees, the selection process is not transparent behind closed doors. The IPCC had to take a lot of criticism for this, but persists in its exclusionary line.

Thus critics have no chance to participate in the climate referee reports.

Huge uncertainty persists

The 6th IPCC report (Assessment Report 6, AR6) is currently being prepared. The first round of reviews has been completed and work on the second draft is in full swing. One of the central topics of each report is the warming effect of CO2, so-called CO2 climate sensitivity. Hardly anything has changed in the last 30 years. The value is still very poorly known and ranges from “we have to keep an eye on it” to “catastrophically strong warming”. In numbers: 1.5°C to 4.5°C warming per CO2 doubling.

Climate sensitivity in the lower range

In recent years it has become increasingly clear that the value is probably located in the lower half of the IPCC range. So it will be interesting to see how the AR6 deals with this. But don’t hold your breath because the IPCC seems to be true to its alarmist line, despite many published references to a lower warming by CO2.

Model Chaos

Paul Voosen spoke on this in Science on 16 April 2019. The IPCC modelers had “improved” some processes in their climate simulations and were then quite surprised that the models suddenly ran much hotter than before. The CO2 climate sensitivity was now suddenly above the range previously thought possible, namely 5°C. The climate sensitivity of the models was suddenly much higher than before. Wow! The alarmists celebrated a feast of joy. However, more serious colleagues obviously threw sand in the alarmist gears and reported concerns.

Excerpt from Voosen’s article:

New climate models predict a warming surge

For nearly 40 years, the massive computer models used to simulate global climate have delivered a fairly consistent picture of how fast human carbon emissions might warm the world. But a host of global climate models developed for the United Nations’s next major assessment of global warming, due in 2021, are now showing a puzzling but undeniable trend. They are running hotter than they have in the past. Soon the world could be, too.

In earlier models, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over preindustrial levels led models to predict somewhere between 2°C and 4.5°C of warming once the planet came into balance. But in at least eight of the next-generation models, produced by leading centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” has come in at 5°C or warmer. Modelers are struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this heightened sensitivity before the next assessment from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the trend “is definitely real. There’s no question,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “Is that realistic or not? At this point, we don’t know.

[…] Many scientists are skeptical, pointing out that past climate changes recorded in ice cores and elsewhere don’t support the high climate sensitivity—nor does the pace of modern warming. The results so far are “not sufficient to convince me,” says Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. In the effort to account for atmospheric components that are too small to directly simulate, like clouds, the new models could easily have strayed from reality, she says. “That’s always going to be a bumpy road.”

“Modelers at a loss”

CO2 climate sensitivity remains uncertain, modelers are at a loss. They had planned everything so beautifully for the AR6. Shortly before the end of the work, they quickly installed a new aerosolset, which then knocked everything down. The models suddenly showed hardly any warming for the 20th century. Ouch!

Perhaps the modelers were closer to the truth than they had thought, since there was now plenty of room for natural climatic factors, which they had previously set to zero as a precaution. So the models were completely changed again. And that finally led to the crazy high values of 5°C per CO2 doubling. Read for yourself:

Late in the model’s development cycle, however, the NCAR group incorporated an updated data set on emissions of aerosols
The aerosol data threw everything off when the model simulated the climate of the 20th century, it now showed hardly any warming. “It took us about a year to work that out,” says NCAR’s Andrew Gettelman, who helped lead the development of the model. But the aerosols may play a role in the higher sensitivity that the modelers now see, perhaps by affecting the thickness and extent of low ocean clouds. “We’re trying to understand if other [model developers] went through the same process,” Gettelman says.”

What consequences does the modeling chaos have for AR6?

In assessing how fast climate may change, the next IPCC report probably won’t lean as heavily on models as past reports did, says Thorsten Mauritsen, a climate scientist at Stockholm University and an IPCC author. It will look to other evidence as well, in particular a large study in preparation that will use ancient climates and observations of recent climate change to constrain sensitivity.”

“Total failure by climate models”

The AR6 will not be able to rely on the simulations and must therefore focus more on other areas of argumentation. But one thing is as certain as an “amen” in Church: The IPCC will claim that the temperature forecasts have become much more reliable than in the previous report, despite the total failure of the climate models. Although this makes no sense at all, it is politically necessary.

The way out: The new hockey stick curve that PAGES2k was able to publish in Nature Geoscience just in time, at the end of July 2019.

:

Figure: Global temperature reconstruction of the last 2000 years according to PAGES2k 2019.

If you thought Michael Mann’s hockey stick had suffered its final blow recently, then you are mistaken. Fact is: A new hockey stick was born in July 2019. Exactly to be used in the IPCC report. It is rumored that the curve was already included in the first draft of the AR6, although it wasn’t even released then. Mysterious.

MWP only 0.3°C warmer than Little Ice Age?

The Medieval Warm Period is ironed flat and is only 0.3°C warmer than the Little Ice Age. Wow. Are these the “ancient climates” which Voosen addresses in his contribution and form the new basis of argumentation?

PAGES2k shortcomings

A closer look at the PAGES2k database reveals a number of shortcomings. First, a large number of tree rings are used, of which only a few have been formally published as case studies. Example: The study uses tree rings from the French Maritime Alps, although a specialist publication on the region clearly advises against using such tree rings there as temperature proxies.

This is not an isolated case. If one goes through the PAGES2k database in detail, one finds a whole series of dubious practices, which were obviously overlooked by the peer review. Read about them in the following papers:

Lüning, S., L. Schulte, S. Garcés-Pastor, I. B. Danladi, M. Gałka (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in the Mediterranean region. Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology, doi: 10.1029/2019PA003734

Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2019.109251

Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. García-Rodríguez, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Oceania. Environmental Reviews, online Just-IN, doi: 10.1139/er-2019-0012

Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. P. Bamonte, F. García-Rodríguez, F. Vahrenholt (2019): The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America. Quaternary International, 508: 70-87. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2018.10.041.

Lüning, S., M. Gałka, F. Vahrenholt (2017): Warming and cooling: The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia. Paleoceanography 32 (11): 1219-1235, doi: 10.1002/2017PA003237.

Authors ignoring important publications

It is also noticeable that the PAGES2k paper does not cite any of the recent publications on the medieval climate anomaly, although the medieval climate is one of the most important topics in the area of palaeoclimatology. At least two of the publications were accessible to PAGES2k authors (others appeared later), but were ignored for unknown reasons.  The papers were able to demonstrate medieval warming throughout the southern hemisphere. Some smaller areas also cooled at the same time, similar to today’s active temperature seesaws and coastal upwelling areas.

Questionable database

In the northern hemisphere the Medieval Warm Period was always known. In this respect, it is an absolute mystery as to how the new hockey stick fix came about, if not through a questionable database.

Conclusion: “climate chaos”

It is time for the IPCC to open up to criticism. The climate models are out of control, as are the paleo-climatic reconstructions. What remains is climate chaos. It is time for a scientifically sustainable new beginning in which criticism is seriously heard and integrated. The exclusion of critics was a historic mistake that is now falling on the IPCC’s feet.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

14 responses to “German Scientists: IPCC Climate Models “Out Of Control”…”Exclusion Of Critics A Historic Mistake””

  1. JCalvertN(UK)

    Although we may criticise the IPCC’s “AR” series of reports and their legions of authors, in comparison to the writers of the recent “Special Reports”, they are consummate professionals.

  2. Dr Roger Higgs (geologist)

    Excellent, thank you Pierre.

    Confirming ‘politically handpicked’ IPCC authors, please see this single slide …

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331974185_IPCC_Intergovernmental_Panel_On_Climate_Change_next_report_AR6_due_2022_-_784_authors_yes_784_but_again_NO_geologists

    Regards,

    Roger

    1. Yonason

      They can’t help but be political. They are ALL politicians there.

      Any science that is there always takes a backseat to the activism, and then only after any “inconvenient” material has been filtered out, or rewritten so as to be unrecognizable to the original author(s).
      https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2018/10/24/ipcc-where-dictators-overrule-scientists/

      I don’t see how any scientist could stand to associate with them. Must be some significant perks that go with that.

  3. Petit_Barde

    It is high time to eradicate the IPCC and to sack this bunch of clowns.

    1. Yonason

      I second that.

      And no attempts at “reform.” This is the UN we’re talking about. Any change would most likely be for the worst. So, yeah, eradicate, and while we’re at it, send the whole UN crime family along with them.

  4. tom0mason

    The problem with all these models — the essence of what they are trying to do — is to model the correct chaotic response from mathematically ill-defined but large array of loosely coupled feedback factors. These embedded feedback factors are also subject to random and chaotic events.
    In the long term the climate chaotically peregrinates around an array of quasi-stable loci. How many loci? — nobody knows. Which loci we are currently orbiting and where the climate will move to next is also simply unknown as ‘climate science™’ has very little knowledge of the number of factors (and there dependent parameters) involved.

    But then again the UN-IPCC has taken care of that — for them, and their misinformed followers, it’s all about humanity failing to control CO2 emissions.

    What historical records, especially geological records, shows is the climate changes are well correlated with the solar variation and not atmospheric CO2 levels.

  5. IPCC Report Under Doubt: Models Out-Of-Control And A New Hockey Stick – Truth is difficult but essential…
  6. Listen To The Scientists – Newscats Hasslefree Allsort

    […] “Out Of Control”…”Exclusion Of Critics A Historic Mistake” German Scientists: IPCC Climate Models “Out Of Control”…”Exclusion Of Critics A Historic Mis… […]

  7. drumphish

    Wolf! WOLF!! Never mind. False alarm.

    You have to have the correct spelling, that would be hockey shtick.

    The daytime high today was near 29 F. The temp right now is 5 F. The record low on this date was recorded in 1919, it was minus 9 below zero F.

    The record high for this date was set in 2005 at 75 degrees F.

    You can’t ignore the weather, can’t be done. I suppose you can, however, it might be at your peril.

    When it is 10 below F and zero visibility, you need to be safe and inside.

    You need to pay attention to the weather conditions if they become life threatening. You’re a fool not to.

    Don’t hold a lightning rod above your head during a lightning storm. Bad weather can happen at any time, doesn’t matter what climate.

    It should begin to warm by March 20th or so, not really until then.

    You can inform me that there is global warming, but all evidence tells me it might not be.

    Winter of ’49

  8. richard

    Of course if you can’t model clouds, and nobody can, the models are just spewing out bul**it.

  9. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #385 | Watts Up With That?
  10. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #385 - Scienceexist
  11. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #385 – Daily News
  12. Weekly Abstract of Local weather and Power # 385 – Next Gadget

    […] German Scientists: IPCC Climate Models “Out Of Control”…”Exclusion Of Critic… […]

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close